How to Power the World without Fossil Fuels

Three times now, Mark Jacobson has gone
out on the same limb.
In 2009 he and co-author Mark Delucchi published a
cover story in Scientific American
that showed how the entire world could get all of its energy—fuel as well as
electricity—from wind, water and solar
sources by 2030. No coal or oil, no nuclear or natural gas. The tale sounded
infeasible—except that Jacobson, from Stanford University, and Delucchi, from
the University of California, Davis, calculated just how many hydroelectric
dams, wave-energy systems, wind turbines, solar powerplants and
rooftop photovoltaic installations the world would need to run itself
completely on renewable energy.

The article sparked a
spirited debate on our Web site, and it also sparked a larger debate
between forward-looking energy planners and those who would rather preserve the
status quo. The duo went on to publish a detailed study in the journal Energy Policy that also called out
numbers for a U.S. strategy.

In the process, New York
would reduce power demand by 37 percent, largely because the new energy sources
are more efficient than the old ones. And because no fossil fuels
would have to be purchased or burned, consumer costs would be similar to what
they are today, and the state would eliminate a huge portion of its carbon
dioxide emissions.

New York State could end fossil
fuel use and generate all of its energy from wind, water and solar power,
according to Mark Jacobson. Image: Graphic by Karl Burkart

Once again, reaction was
swift. The New York Times
heralded the study as scientifically groundbreaking and practically impossible.
But this time Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, is
digging in. He took his analysis a step further and found a surprising way to
sell his plan. And he’s close to finishing a similar study for California,
which will lend more depth to his vision. I asked Jacobson why he’s out to
change the world, how he answers his critics and what it will take for his
plans to get traction in government.

[An edited
transcript of the interview follows.]

At first glance, your proposals to convert society
wholesale to renewable energy, and
relatively soon, sound wild. What kinds of reactions do you get?

Mostly, it’s pretty
positive. A lot of people say, “Wow, we should really make a huge effort to
push this forward.” There are always naysayers who think it’s pie in the sky,
that we’ll never get there. And there are people who are tied into a certain
industry who push back the most. It’s almost like motherhood and apple pie,
though; it’s hard to say “Oh, I don’t like it.” The real question is: How do
policy makers react? Few of them say they would be against it. It’s more that
they still want to push other energy sources. You need policy makers behind it,
and you also need grassroots efforts.

Why did you dive down into New York State after
having done the entire world?

To get any traction I
figured we had to do a plan with higher resolution, because otherwise it’s just
too massive for anyone to actually do anything about it. And some people in New
York are really interested in coming up with a new energy plan. At first I was
hesitant but then I thought it could be quite a coup, it could be very
valuable. I know Governor [Andrew] Cuomo’s office is reading it.

After the global plan appeared in Scientific
American a lot of people said the
exercise was intriguing but it would never be taken seriously as a blueprint.
What are the main obstacles to such a sweeping overhaul at a state or national
level?

The main obstacles are
political and social—getting politicians onboard. There are always local zoning
issues. I’m sure there will be a big push by the gas lobby and the oil lobby
against this.

So then how do you sell the plan?

There is a huge savings
in lives. The New York plan would prevent 4,000 mortalities a year in the state
due to less air pollution, and a related savings of $33 billion—about 3 percent
of the GDP of the state. That resonates more with people than climate change
issues. We also looked at job creation; more jobs would be created than lost.

The main criticism about heavy reliance on wind and solar power
is that the sources are intermittent: the wind doesn’t always blow, the sun
doesn’t shine at night. Do your plans rely a lot on energy storage, which
remains a tough challenge?

If you get the [power]
transmission grid right you don’t need a whole lot of storage. By combining
wind and solar and geothermal and hydroelectric, you can match the power
demand. And if you oversize the grid, when you’re producing extra electricity
you use it to produce hydrogen [for fuel-cell vehicles and ships as well as some
district heating and industrial processes]. You can also spread the peak demand
by giving financial incentives [for consumers to use power at off-peak times].
Some storage certainly would help; we have storage in the form of hydrogen and
in concentrated solar power plants. There
are many ways to tackle the intermittency issues.

The other concern that is usually raised about
renewable energy is that it is more expensive than fossil fuels.
What would electricity prices be like in New York?

The residential
electricity cost in the U.S. on average is 13.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. In New
York it’s 18.1 cents. If you look at the states that have the highest
percentage of electricity generation from wind, the average electricity price
increase from 2003 to 2011 was 2 cents a kilowatt-hour, whereas all the other
states averaged 3.6 cents. So prices in the states that didn’t put in a lot of
wind went up more.

Given the radical nature of your proposals, is it
fair to say you are an advocate for renewable energy?

I’m doing the science
part of it. I’m not really advocating. The job of a scientist is to make sure
that information is provided clearly and appropriately, so people can make a
better decision. I don't advocate. But there is a larger group of people that
I’m doing science work for that is more policy oriented, the Solutions Project.
It involves scientists, industrial people, business people, finance people,
artists and entertainers, and some media. It tries to take clean energy plans
and get them implemented.

If you’re not an advocate, what is your motivation?
You’ve done this exercise three times now.

My career has always been
based on trying to understand large-scale pollution and climate problems—with
the goal of trying to solve them. This is the “trying to solve them” part. If
society is going to do it, at least we now know that it’s technically and
economically feasible. Whether it actually happens depends on political will.

You’ve plotted a course for the world, and for New
York. What’s next?

We’ve almost finished a
California plan, which is similar. Ultimately, we’d like to do 50 plans for 50
states. I’ve started Washington State. The California plan should be done in
two months or so. Then we have to decide what we’re going to do with it.

We provide a live link to your original material on your site - which
raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site
is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article
or other item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit
use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work &
author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along
with this or a similar notice).

Feel free
to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you
never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember
attribution! If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

1 comment:

we need wind power, hydro-power, solar power, thermal energy, hydrogen direct from water systems for internal combustion engines, tidal energy, over unity energy (that is real) what we DONT NEED is greedy, corrupt, ego-maniacs who hide these energy systems from us. saving the planet is easy, get rid of the monsters who occupy the offices of power.

Follow New Illuminati on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE to the NEW ILLUMINATI YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Contact Us

Welcome to the new Enlightenment, an era when suppressed science, hidden history and the enlightening nature of reality are all revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

These are the thoughts and ideas of New Illuminati - bold forerunners and pioneers of new awareness all over the globe.

Notes on new emerging paradigms from the NEXUS New Times Magazine Founder R. Ayana, who lives in a remote Australian rainforest (and is no longer involved with the magazine) - Catching drops from the deluge in a paper cup since 1984.

§ 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is OK. Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.

Claimer

All opinions, facts, debates and conjectures xpressed herein are xtrusions of macrocosmic consciousness into your field of awareness. The New Illuminati are not to be held responsible or accountable for flashes of insight, epiphany, curiosity, transformation or enlightenment experienced by any person, human or otherwise.